[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: ARTICLE : Just say no to "Hinduism" (was Re: ARTICLE : On
For someone who claimed that he had posted his last on this topic,
Ramakrishnan was quick to add yet another follow-up. What I think is
ultimately humorous about this whole situation is that the philosophy that
he follows (advaita) would have us all believe that the world we observe
around us is nothing but illusion. Well, I find it odd that Ramakrishnan is
all too quick to take offense at illusory postings and then reply with more
illusory attacks. I guess this just goes to show the difference between
theoretical advaita and advaita in practice, or perhaps the impracticality
associated with following that philosophy.
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian <rbalasub@ecn.purdue.edu> wrote in article
<ghenDxMoLK.Mou@netcom.com>...
> You were the first one to indulge in personal attacks. I merely
retaliated.
Really? That's funny. I don't remember even mentioning you in this thread
until you appeared with all kinds of claims that Srila Prabhupada "diluted
Indian philosophy."
> Well, I guess I have the gall to speak the truth, dunno about you.
Merely claiming that you speak the truth while the other person is lying is
a Jai Maharaj tactic. A lie told over and over again does not become the
truth.
> > I distinctly remember a time when you used to mock Gaudiya Vaishnavas
for
> > saying that Shankaraachaarya was an incarnation of Shiva. You remember
that
> > time? You objected to the idea that Shankaraachaarya was an incarnation
of
> > Shiva, and quoted some esoteric text (which contained no information on
> > such an incarnation) as your "proof." You then proceeded to make fun of
the
> > Gaudiyas for this belief.
>
> Lying, yet again. I mocked the Gaudiyas since they claimed (in that fifth
rate
> article) Shankara was the main force in defeating Buddhism.
I made no claim that Shankara was the "main force for defeating...."
Whether this was or was not the case, it was not even the point I was
trying to make. It seems like you are selectively remembering and
forgetting things. All I said was that Shankara appeared to defeat Buddhism
and reestablish the Vedic authority.
Looking back at the archives, it was clear that many of your attacks were
based on this idea of who it was who was the driving force for defeating
Buddhism. However, Vijay correctly pointed out that the GVS article which
said that Shankara was the main force for defeating them had nothing to do
with ISKCON, and you corrected yourself. Nevertheless, there were other
attacks of yours which were clearly based on this idea of Shankara = Shiva
which you seemed to find quite humorous.
It was Kumarila
> Bhatta even by Advaitic tradition. I said that the incarnation bussiness
is a
> story passed down and I did not care whether it was true or not.
No, you very clearly used it as a means for attacking and making fun of me
and my tradition. Here is what you had to say:
at http://rbhatnagar.ececs.uc.edu:8080/srh_home/1996_2/msg00338.html,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian said in a follow-up to my posting:
> Shrisha Rao pointed out that this was false according to the Maadhva
school;
> it is also false according to the Gaudiya Vaishnava school -- Shankara
> is considered an incarnation of Shiva sent by the Lord (Narayana) to
> preach the mayavada philosophy.
I had no comments on this, I fail to see why this was brought out here.
The absurdity of the supposition of the Gaudiya school speaks for itself.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------
Only the statement was not absurd, and several advaitists have already
conceded that Shankara is an incarnation of Shiva. If it is absurd for
Gaudiyas to think like that, then it must be absurd for other advaitins to
think like that also. But Ramakrishnan would never call an advaitin absurd.
Can this be due to a prejudice?
Then in http://rbhatnagar.ececs.uc.edu:8080/srh_home/1996_2/msg00021.html,
Ramakrishnan Balasubramanian said:
The Shatha Rudra Samhita in the Shiva puraanaa,
the greatest of all the puraanaas,
elaborates on the incarnations,
of Shiva, with matted hair.
However, O great scholar,
It does not mention the avataara,
of Shiva as Shankara Bhagavatpaada,
to the surprise of thine humble servant.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
This occurred in a very sarcastic, lyrical composition that was designed to
make fun of me, which seems to be the thing you do best. Actually, to get
these pieces of evidence, I had to dig through many articles of yours
insulting my tradition. For example, you would make generalizations that
anyone who believed in a 3-fold classification of puraanas was a bigot. You
also said the same about those who claim that one Deity is supreme over the
others. There were repeated references to "ISKCON comic books" and bigotry
as a motivation for the monotheistic teachings of the Vaishnava schools.
Back then, as now, you were better at hurling abuses than in talking
philosophy. One who is secure in his beliefs need not resort to such
attacks.
Actually, in that same article, I recall you saying, "ISKCON members have
been known for chest-beating - accosting people at various places and
telling them how all interpretations of everything is wrong except their
own." This was obviously a lie, as your recent response to Dhruba
Chakravarti on the subject of Gaudiya Vaishnavs and other forms of
sanaatana-dharma shows. But I don't expect you to apologize for that. It's
far better for you to misrepresent your opponent (by claiming that he says
everyone else is wrong) than to go head-to-head with him on philosophical
details. In fact, what you used to do is make claims that your opponents'
arguments were "utter tripe" and "stupid" so as to get out of the jam of
having to answer them.
Anyway, moving right along, in
http://rbhatnagar.ececs.uc.edu:8080/srh_home/1996_2/msg00066.html, a
follow-up of yours to an article I posted from _Teachings of Lord
Chaitanya_, you write the following:
3. Even a person with a meagre knowledge of history will know that Shankara
was
born somewhere in 700-800AD(, exact date unknown). Similarly a person with
even
a modicum of knowledge of the Yuga system will know that this date falls in
the
Kali and not Dvapara Yuga. Thus, anyone can see the above verse can in NO
WAY
refer to Shankara. I would suppose Prabhupada had atleast some knowledge of
yugas and so on. The only conclusion I can come to is Prabhupada was trying
to
twist facts (euphemism for outright lying).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
This was based on a misunderstanding (which in itself is not bad, it
happens to all of us) that the Shiva Puraana verse which was quoted spoke
of Shankara appearing in the Dvaapara yuga. However, it most certainly said
no such thing. All it did say was that this process of sages appearing and
misleading others would begin in Dvaapara. Note how you nevertheless seize
upon the opportunity attack Srila Prabhupada in your last two sentences.
The difference between you and me is that I attack philosophies, while you
generally attack people. At least, I certainly never would have insulted a
Shankaraachaarya or other well known Vedantin, but you have no such qualms.
Once again, I must point out that the issue of Shankaraachaarya = Shiva is
the basis for these attacks. And once again, I must also point out that you
ought to apologize for your behavior, since there advaitins who also hold
this belief.
So you see, I have proven that you made fun of my tradition for having this
belief. And I think that, if you had some sense of honor, you would
apologize. Otherwise, I can only conclude that your attacks will always be
without credibility, motivated as they are by a desire to defeat me rather
than to establish the truth.
> changed his tune. Please refer to the archives. HKS has not had a civil
> discussion with even _one_ person outside his tradition here or in srv.
One
Another instance of you putting your foot in your mouth. I have had civil
discussions with Shrisha Rao (dvaita) HPR (dvaita), Jaladhar (advaita),
Vidya (advaita), and Anand Hudli (advaita). In fact, you are the only
person who claims to represent advaita with whom I cannot have a civil
discussion. Isn't that odd? Oh but no, you think, it can't be because of
me...
> needs to only look at the archives. A famous example is his usage of
headers
> like "Move over aachaaryas Ken Stuart here" etc, when Ken Stuart was
being
> perfectly polite.
A slightly sarcastic header which was designed to drive home a point: that
he was claiming to accept other aachaarya's opinions while simultaneously
giving his own, contradictory opinions. It was hardly a personal attack,
but in any case, were it to be considered as such, I certainly don't think
it to be on the same level as accusing someone's guru of twisting facts,
speaking "utter tripe" or calling them a bigot.
-- Krishna
